Association of University Centers on Disabilities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237189098
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Phone
3015888252
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,570,476
Expenses
$5,873,441
Assets
$5,113,209
Liabilities
$1,747,664

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ILKA RIDDLE (PRESIDENT)
  • RHONDA EPPELSHEIMER (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • JOHN T TSCHIDA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (END 11/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN T TSCHIDA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (END 11/24)): $368,271 total reported compensation
  • EDWARD T WASHINGTON (CFO/COO): $253,520 total reported compensation
  • RODNEY SAMACO (CHIEF STRATEGY & BUS. DEV. OFFICER): $225,136 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Aucd's mission is to advance policies and practices that improve the health, education, social and economic well-being of all people with developmental and other disabilities, their families, and their communities by supporting our members in research, education, health and service activities that achieve our vision.

What it reported doing in 2024

Acl fe: aucd will create (and/or build upon) a partnership to develop the proposed approach and plan to advance peer-to-peer models for aac. The partnership will play an active role in the project, providing guidance and general direction in the design and implementation of the project. The partnership must include, but not be limited to, individuals that use/potential users of aac, nonprofit community-based service-provider organization(s), direct support professionals, self-advocacy organizations, youth and adults with id/dd, families, related service providers, educators, and others in their support system. The partnership must include individuals from multiply marginalized communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 20 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $368K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $531K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.